Edge color dispersion in DNG compared with JPG

[Yeedah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, guys!

I recently take some photos with many edge details, and I found the DNG file has unwanted purplish color dispension in the edge.

Is there anyway I can achieve the same or better result (like the processed JPG) in the Lightroom?

JPG did not have this issue, just like the samples down below:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

While DNG will have some purplish edge color dispension:

Edited March 1, 2020 by Yeedah

[adan]

Lightroom > "lens corrections" > "Basic" > "remove chromatic aberrations." (automatic)

or

LR  > "lens corrections" > Color > "remove chromatic aberrations" (manually with sliders, for better control)

or maybe

LR > "Lens corrections" > Profile > "Enable Profile Corrections" > select profile for 28 Summilux f/1.7 (if one exists).

[PhotoCruiser]

As @adan wrote,
activate remove cromatic abbreations and the color fringe will go.
I guess that the difference between RAW and JPG is related to the image compression of JPG who eliminates the -in your case magenta" fringe.
Have a look here

Chris

[01af]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Yeedah:

Is there any way I can achieve the same or better result (like the processed JPEG) in Lightroom?

Well, you know what they say: There's no free lunch.

The colour dispersion in fine-detail areas is the price to pay for the sensor's missing anti-aliasing filter. It's an artifact of the Bayer colour filter and the demosaicing process. The benefit is finer detail. The in-camera JPEG has a kind of software anti-aliasing filter applied so it doesn't show these false colour patters. As a trade-off, it's a little softer and has less detail.

In Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom, you can use the Defringe tool in the Lens Correction panel to get rid of colour fringes along high-contrast edges. After that, you can use the Radial Filter tool and apply the Moiré Reduction brush to areas with lots of fine detail — depending on image content, applying a negative Saturation brush may also be beneficial. Don't overdo it! Just like with noise reduction, mitigating the unwanted artifacts to some acceptable degree usually is better than eliminating them entirely. These actions may slightly decrease the apparent sharpness and/or colour separation of the finest detail, but less so than in-camera JPEG would.

[Yeedah]

9 hours ago, adan said:

Lightroom > "lens corrections" > "Basic" > "remove chromatic aberrations." (automatic)

or

LR  > "lens corrections" > Color > "remove chromatic aberrations" (manually with sliders, for better control)

or maybe

LR > "Lens corrections" > Profile > "Enable Profile Corrections" > select profile for 28 Summilux f/1.7 (if one exists).

I find it! Works perfectly!

[Yeedah]

8 hours ago, PhotoCruiser said:

As @adan wrote,
activate remove cromatic abbreations and the color fringe will go.
I guess that the difference between RAW and JPG is related to the image compression of JPG who eliminates the -in your case magenta" fringe.
Have a look here

Chris

I do enable the Chrmatic Abberration, but it is not working that good. 

After I manually change the amount, everything looks much better.

[Yeedah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, 01af said:

Well, you know what they say: There's no free lunch.

The colour dispersion in fine-detail areas is the price to pay for the sensor's missing anti-aliasing filter. It's an artifact of the Bayer colour filter and the demosaicing process. The benefit is finer detail. The in-camera JPEG has a kind of software anti-aliasing filter applied so it doesn't show these false colour patters. As a trade-off, it's a little softer and has less detail.

In Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom, you can use the Defringe tool in the Lens Correction panel to get rid of colour fringes along high-contrast edges. After that, you can use the Radial Filter tool and apply the Moiré Reduction brush to areas with lots of fine detail — depending on image content, applying a negative Saturation brush may also be beneficial. Don't overdo it! Just like with noise reduction, mitigating the unwanted artifacts to some acceptable degree usually is better than eliminating them entirely. These actions may slightly decrease the apparent sharpness and/or colour separation of the finest detail, but less so than in-camera JPEG would.

Thank!

[Chippy_boy]

16 hours ago, 01af said:

Well, you know what they say: There's no free lunch.

The colour dispersion in fine-detail areas is the price to pay for the sensor's missing anti-aliasing filter. It's an artifact of the Bayer colour filter and the demosaicing process. The benefit is finer detail. The in-camera JPEG has a kind of software anti-aliasing filter applied so it doesn't show these false colour patters. As a trade-off, it's a little softer and has less detail.

In Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom, you can use the Defringe tool in the Lens Correction panel to get rid of colour fringes along high-contrast edges. After that, you can use the Radial Filter tool and apply the Moiré Reduction brush to areas with lots of fine detail — depending on image content, applying a negative Saturation brush may also be beneficial. Don't overdo it! Just like with noise reduction, mitigating the unwanted artifacts to some acceptable degree usually is better than eliminating them entirely. These actions may slightly decrease the apparent sharpness and/or colour separation of the finest detail, but less so than in-camera JPEG would.

I just wish camera manufacturers would stop removing the AA filter from their cameras to be honest.  The resolution gain is IMO simply not worth it in return for the added hassle.  Is a 47 MP image not detailed enough already???

Of course Leica are not alone in this, but I think its a daft fad that manufacturers seem to have fallen for.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Chippy_boy

[01af]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb Chippy_boy:

Of course Leica are not alone in this, but I think its a daft fad that manufacturers seem to have fallen for.

Yes, it is — but it's not the manufacturers to blame.

Years ago, all digital cameras had anti-aliasing filters. Then, a few cameras came without — and they sold like crazy. There were even a few models that offered the choice between a sensor with and a sensor without AA filter ... and all the customers went for the version without; those with AA filters were dead stock on the dealers' shelves.

So, if a manufacturer would dare to build an AA filter into a new digital camera today, it would get a poor sensor score at DxO Mark and be unsaleable. It's a classic case of Be careful what you wish for – you might get it.

Edited March 2, 2020 by 01af

[Chippy_boy]

6 hours ago, 01af said:

Yes, it is — but it's not the manufacturers to blame.

Years ago, all digital cameras had anti-aliasing filters. Then, a few cameras came without — and they sold like crazy. There were even a few models that offered the choice between a sensor with and a sensor without AA filter ... and all the customers went for the version without; those with AA filters were dead stock on the dealers' shelves.

So, if a manufacturer would dare to build an AA filter into a new digital camera today, it would get a poor sensor score at DxO Mark and be unsaleable. It's a classic case of Be careful what you wish for – you might get it.

Totally agree.

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, Chippy_boy said:

I just wish camera manufacturers would stop removing the AA filter from their cameras to be honest.  The resolution gain is IMO simply not worth it in return for the added hassle.  Is a 47 MP image not detailed enough already???

Of course Leica are not alone in this, but I think its a daft fad that manufacturers seem to have fallen for.

For present-day cameras that is quite reasonable - but at a time that the best sensors were around 10 MP the gain by removing the filter was substantial - see the M8 vs. the Canon 5D.

[Chippy_boy]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

For present-day cameras that is quite reasonable - but at a time that the best sensors were around 10 MP the gain by removing the filter was substantial - see the M8 vs. the Canon 5D.

That's not an opinion I share. Personally I'd say the improvements were marginal, and at the expense of often introducing moiré, which can be a right pain to avoid / get rid of. Often most of the perceived additional detail is down to false sharpness IMO.

Rather ironically, the need for an AA filter diminishes as we get higher and higher pixel counts and the lens is more commonly the limiting factor in terms of resolution - thereby blurring the image just enough to prevent moiré from occurring.  Effectively the lens becomes the AA filter!  But with lower resolutions, there was an even greater need for it... again just my opinion.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Chippy_boy said:

That's not an opinion I share. Personally I'd say the improvements were marginal, and at the expense of often introducing moiré, which can be a right pain to avoid / get rid of. Often most of the perceived additional detail is down to false sharpness IMO.

Rather ironically, the need for an AA filter diminishes as we get higher and higher pixel counts and the lens is more commonly the limiting factor in terms of resolution - thereby blurring the image just enough to prevent moiré from occurring.  Effectively the lens becomes the AA filter!  But with lower resolutions, there was an even greater need for it... again just my opinion.

Coming from Canon (10D and 1D) my experience was rather the opposite.